To understand the trans phenomenon, is absolutely vital to understand her position. Once you grok this, it becomes clear why evidence is irrelevant—the belief about trans women in sports is held for moral and not epistemological or evidence-based reasons.

submitted by Chipit from twitter.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ClassroomPast6178 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Peter Boghossian is someone who is worth listening to. His non-confrontational approach to argument using the Socratic Method is a real breath of fresh air and something that the media could really learn from.

I especially like his “Street Epistemology” series which involves asking controversial questions and having discussions where people discuss why they believe something and it is eye opening.

I’m not surprised that he has picked up on that clip of that woman going apeshit in favour of trans in women’s sport, he has done a lot of work looking at religious belief.

Good catch u/Chipit

[–]Chipit[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

He is one of the three, along with Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, who collaborated to submit absolutely outrageous, stupid fake & made up "scientific" papers to critical theory journals - and got them published. They coined the term "Grievance Studies".

[–]ClassroomPast6178 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, and he did the “Conceptual penis” article with James Lindsay before that before they brought Helen Pluckrose in.

Mike Nayna has a brilliant series of films about the whole affair that he made with them as it was all unfolding.

Matt Walsh picking a fight with Peter Boghossian over one of Boghossian’s tweets was a real mistake on Walsh’s part, and I think it was down to a failure to research.